Blog

Google on Tuesday is making a big move with its Docs service, opening it up to all types of file uploads. This includes photos, movies, music, and ZIP archives, all of which will be stored on Google’s servers.

Along with opening up Docs to additional file types, Google is also dramatically increasing the size of individual uploads. Where the company will still limit users to 500KB for Microsoft Word documents, and 10MB for PowerPoint presentations and PDFs, the new limit for all other files that cannot be converted into a Google Docs format is 250MB. This is 10 times the size of what’s allowed as an attachment in the company’s Web mail service Gmail.

In a post on the company’s blog, Google Docs’ product manager Vijay Bangaru said that the new size and file type allowances serve to make Docs a replacement for USB drives, allowing users to access their files between computers. The company is also applying the same permissions-based sharing system it has for documents that it hosts, allowing users to share files with one another.

That said, the amount of space for non-Google Docs files that are stored within Docs will only be 1GB. Users can upgrade though, and Google is planning on that.

Just like users can purchase additional space for other Google services like Picasa Web Albums and Gmail, users will soon be able to rent space from Google. For standard Google Docs users this will be 25 cents per gigabyte, per year, while Google Apps enterprise users have to pay $3.50 per gigabyte, per year. That’s a hefty price difference, but customer support, and a service level agreement that guarantees uptime add costs.

Bangaru says the new file storage features will be rolling out to users within the “next couple of weeks.” In the meantime, Google has been busy readying a new documents API that will take advantage of the storage, giving third-party programs read and write access. This turns Google into more of a traditional storage provider than it’s ever been, completely cutting out the need to visit the Docs site itself to add or remove files. The only caveat here—and it’s a big one—is that users will need to Google Apps premier edition customers to access the API, leaving free users of Docs and lesser Apps subscribers out in the cold.

Three companies that are coming out of the gate with support for this new API are Syncplicity, Manymoon, and Memeo Connect. All three will be tapping into it to do things like file sync, upload, and backup.

So is this the GDrive?

Signs that Google was readying Docs for file storage came in late July of last year, which is when the company quietly added the “files” menu to the Docs interface. It’s since been under-utilized as a place for users to store PDFs that could be read within Google’s document viewer. Attempts to upload other files that could not be converted into Google’s own formats simply did not go through.

But do these changes make Google Docs the long-awaited GDrive? In a way yes, but it’s far from the game-changing storage service that many thought would come by now. The expectation has always been that if Google came out with its own storage service, it would be deeply tied into its properties. And more importantly, that it would be something readily available to all users.

This time last year the company had alluded to as much, almost by accident. Bundled deep within the code of the company’s “Google Pack” software (which includes a handful of Google, and non-Google software installers), was mention of a service called “GDrive.” It was billed simply as a tool for online file backup and storage. That included “photos, music, and documents.” The software also promised to let users access these files from a variety of locations—including the operating system and mobile phones.

Sound familiar? Google Docs now does all those things, at least with the help of some third-party programs. However, the one remaining hurdle is getting the sync to non-enterprise users, which for the time being is not happening.

There is light at the end of the tunnel though. This year, Google brings its cloud-centric Chrome OS to Netbooks, and you can be sure that storage will be an important part of the equation. It’s much easier to sell the idea of a cloud-based lifestyle when you can give people a place to dump their existing files. This is especially true given what could be a very limited amount of storage in the first crop of Chrome OS hardware that will be sporting solid state drives—a technology that costs considerably more per gigabyte than platter-based hard drives.

Suddenly 25 cents a gigabyte doesn’t sound so bad, does it?

Where Google still has a lot of work to do is unifying its storage offerings into one big drive that’s shared across all of its services. As it stands, depending on what type of media you’re giving to Google, and from what service you’re uploading it to, there’s a different bucket with a different limit. This is further complicated by the fact that many of the services have trouble talking to one another. If they did, it would allow Google to group search indexes into one place where users could sift through content they had stored across all of Google’s properties.

While Google may get there by the launch of Chrome OS, it doesn’t have to. Just consider Tuesday’s news proof enough that Google, at the very least, has the ball rolling.

This story originally appeared on CNET

The aviation business is perennially in the spotlight for its role in greenhouse-gas emissions: Jets burn tons of fuel at high altitudes. So far, much of the focus on next-generation aviation technology has landed on big, high-profile planes, such as Boeing’s Dreamliner or Airbus’ A380, and all the fancy gimmicks they incorporate to reduce fuel consumption and carbon emissions.

But the real battleground for aviation over the next two decades could play out among smaller, regional jets–100-plus seat planes that play an increasingly large role in air transportation in the U.S., Latin America, and Asia.

That’s the target market for Pratt & Whitney’s newest jet engine, the Pure Power PW1000G, which will be fitted to the latest regional jets from Bombardier and Mitsubishi in 2013 and 2014. The new engine is “the biggest step in engine technology since the 747,” says Alan Epstein, P&W’s vice-president for Technology and Environment and a 30-year veteran of MIT.

The new P&W engine, which garnered Popular Science’s “Best of What’s New” award last year, promises to cut fuel consumption by between 12% and 15%. That by itself is good news for carriers wracked by high oil prices. But lower fuel consumption also means fewer carbon emissions. The engine also cuts down engine noise, which means the new planes could operate from more airports with strict environmental standards.

P&W’s engine marks a departure from traditional turbofan engines used in jets: It has a big, 250-pound gear in the middle of it. That means it can use a bigger fan in the front, generate a lot more thrust, and still cut fuel consumption. The redesigned engine also has fewer, lighter parts than traditional engines. The company says that can cut maintenance costs by $1.5 million annually per plane.

P&W, a unit of United Technologies, is banking on the engine’s efficiency to become a big selling point with regional-jet makers; Bombardier alone expects to sell 6,300 new 100-to-150 seat aircraft over the next twenty years.

Just in case, though, the Obama administration is helping out: P&W got one of the biggest awards, worth $110 million in clean-tech manufacturing tax credits, from the $2.3 billion announced by the White House Friday, to retool its factory to produce the new engine.

Excessive secrecy prevents the public from knowing what chemicals are used in their communities and what health impacts might be associated with those substances, according to a recent analysis of government data by the nonprofit Environmental Working Group (EWG). The growing practice of concealing data alleged to be trade secrets has seemingly hobbled regulators’ ability to protect the public from potential risks from thousands of chemicals.

<!–break–>

Calling the situation "a regulatory black hole, a place where information goes in – but much never comes out," EWG’s analysis, Off the Books: Industry’s Secret Chemicals, criticizes the nation’s primary chemical statute, the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), and highlights excessive secrecy as one of the law’s biggest flaws.

By literally locking up the data within a few offices at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the agency prevents researchers, in and out of government, from identifying risks and problems with the use of the rapidly growing number of chemicals in commerce. Moreover, without the information, the public is unable to make informed decisions regarding the safety of everyday activities – from what cleaning products to use to what bedding to sleep on.

The data obtained by EWG under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) partially reveals the extent to which EPA is allowing chemical manufacturers to hide chemical names, the chemicals’ characteristics, and often even the identity of manufacturers. EWG also found that for two out of every three chemicals that entered commerce in the past 30 years, their identity remains secret. Of the more than 83,000 chemicals in commerce, information on 20 percent is kept secret. These secret chemicals include substances that have shown a substantial risk of injury to health or the environment. The list of secret chemicals also includes those used in products specifically designed for children.

The 33-year-old TSCA includes provisions to protect information that manufacturers claim would hurt their profits if it were disclosed. Businesses can claim that such information is confidential business information (CBI) when they submit it to the agency. If the government does not raise an objection to the claim, it must protect the information from disclosure. Many offices don’t have sufficient staff to review all of the CBI claims made by companies in their submissions. In the case of chemicals, the EPA does not share information claimed as CBI with other agencies, state or local officials, emergency personnel, or even within EPA itself, except under certain, highly restricted circumstances.

The use of CBI claims by chemical companies has been increasing. The EPA data show that secret chemicals make up a much greater proportion of widely used chemicals than they did 15 years ago. Secret chemicals increased five to six times by volume produced from 1990 to 2006.

According to the EWG report, "Hiding the identity of these chemicals could significantly delay or completely prevent actions to reduce exposures to compounds that by definition require an open and transparent evaluation of their risks."

The refusal to disclose chemical information can have serious consequences for public health. In 2008, a spill of fluids used in natural gas drilling sent a drilling worker to the hospital. The worker recovered quickly, but one of the nurses treating him was also exposed to the chemicals on the worker’s boots, and her health gradually deteriorated. As the nurse’s health declined, her physicians struggled to get the needed information on the drilling chemicals she was exposed to because the information was considered a trade secret.

The EWG study did not evaluate how frequently EPA challenges claims of CBI or what outcomes such challenges produce. However, a 2005 report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) stated that only about 14 CBI claims were challenged per year, and that in almost every instance, the industry capitulated and agreed to disclosure of the information. The GAO report found that 95 percent of manufactures’ new chemical registrations with EPA contain some information alleged to be trade secrets.

Back in December 2000, the EPA began a process to revise its regulations for dealing with confidentiality claims throughout the agency. This agency effort was geared to replace a 1994 attempt, which was abandoned due to "the complexity of the issues raised in the public comments." The 2000 initiative was also abandoned before completion.

There is some indication that the Obama administration may take action to reduce the amount of secrecy that prevents the public from understanding what chemical threats surround them. In July 2009, shortly after assuming leadership of EPA’s Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, Assistant Administrator Steve Owens ordered the disclosure of 530 identities of substances produced in large amounts. Also, in a recent Washington Post article, Owens stated, "People who were submitting information to the EPA saw that you can claim that virtually anything is confidential and get away with it."

Although the EWG report focuses on the treatment of alleged trade secrets under TSCA, the use of CBI claims allows EPA to hide other types of industry data, such as information about pesticides, which are regulated under a different law. Recently, EPA concealed information on the inspection and enforcement histories of coal ash impoundments. These impoundments contain billions of tons of toxic waste generated from burning coal for electricity. In December 2008, the catastrophic failure of one such impoundment sent 5.4 million cubic yards of toxic coal ash flowing over 300 acres and into rivers in Tennessee. The EPA also manages alleged trade secrets under the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, and many other statutes.

Advocates for greater transparency of chemical information have offered numerous suggestions for reforming what they and the EPA recognize to be excessive and harmful levels of secrecy. The CBI regulations under TSCA have helped create an agency culture that is geared toward secrecy, with criminal penalties for unauthorized disclosure of CBI by agency personnel and the imposition of huge resource burdens if the agency attempts to challenge a company’s trade secrets claims. Among other changes, reformers call for a narrower, clearer definition of what information may legitimately be claimed as a trade secret, greater up-front substantiation of the claims, and periodic reviews to remove outdated or unjustified CBI determinations.

If I want to be on top of my game, energetic, happy, nice, patient, healthy, and clear-headed, I need to EAT HEALTHY FOOD, GET A GOOD NIGHT’S SLEEP, AND EXERCISE.  It’s that simple.

I’m also a sucker for lists.  So, when I came across these three "Rules Lists" I wanted to "capture them" for future reference.

• Food Rules: Your Dietary Do’s and Don’ts, by Michael Pollan, New
  York Times Magazine Food Issue, October 11, 2009.  Earlier in the year
  Michael posted a request for readers’ rules on Tara Parker-Pope’s Well
  blog.  He received 2,500 responses, and offered his favorite 20 in this issue.  Click here for Pollan’s full list.  He has recently published a short-useful-funny paperback–with 64 short simple rules–Food Rules.  An Eater’s Manual based on his now famous saying, "Eat food.  Not too much.  Mostly Plants."  For a short interview about the book, click here.  I’ve provided a "mash-up" of my favorites. Some from NYT’s readers and some from Michael’s book.

• Sleep Tips:  How to Sleep Better, Lose Weight, and Live Longer, by Mark
  Hyman, MD, practicing physician and pioneer in functional medicine. 
  Huffington Post, Jan. 9, 2010.  Click here for the full list.

• Realistic Resolutions From Dr. Oz, by Tara Parker-Pope, Well Blog, New York Times Dec. 29, 2009.  Click here for the full list.

Filed under: Audio, Reviews, Music

Relative pitch, let alone perfect pitch (some people are born with it, everyone else has to learn!) is an invaluable skill required when it comes to playing an instrument and understanding the music you are hearing. Thankfully, Easy Ear Training has developed a nifty little app to help you along with all your pitch training needs.

The idea is to learn how to hear the difference between two musical notes in a given key / octave, and be able to identify what that difference is, based on the root note. This is otherwise known as an interval: the space between two notes. For example, a minor 3rd, or a perfect 5th (think the Star Wars theme tune!).

For a great description of what an interval is, click here. I also came across this iTunes U video lesson by Shawn “Thunder” Wallace [iTunes Link] describing the difference between perfect pitch, relative pitch and something that Shawn calls true pitch. Very interesting!

This may sound rather complicated, but really you don’t need to know any of the theory when it comes to using the Relative Pitch app. At its simplest, it will help you to hear with more detail what it is that you’re listening too

Relative Pitch [iTunes Link] consists of two main modes: training and testing. When you open the app, you kick off with the first lesson (of which there are 14) in the training mode. Once the first lesson is complete, a corresponding test is unlocked to examine what you have learned. On passing that test the next lesson is unlocked, and so forth.

Relative Pitch will teach you to distinguish ascending, descending and harmonic intervals across four octaves. With in-app volume control, in-depth customization of the training mode, and even being able to choose the root note of the octave you want to train from, you’ll make strides.

Whether you are a seasoned musician or a complete beginner, Relative Pitch will have you listening with a sharpened ear and a greater appreciation of the music you love.

The Relative Pitch app costs £4.99, but there is a lite free version of the app here [iTunes Link] so you can try it out.

Also, keep an eye out for the revamped Easy Ear Training website launching in the coming weeks.

TUAWCount The beats: Training your ear with RelativePitch originally appeared on The Unofficial Apple Weblog (TUAW) on Tue, 12 Jan 2010 11:30:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

Buy This Item: [Click here to buy this item]

Read Original Article

Google is extending Google Docs, allowing any kind of file to be uploaded up to 250 MB in size.

The move signifies how Google Docs is now a storage service as much as a collaboration platform. Enterprise customers may now store large files on Google Docs for free or a small cost. Additionally, the documents may be further backed up using third-party applications.

Sponsor

Google is promoting the service as a way for enterprise customer to store files without the need for a thumb drive. That’s a clear sign of how traditional storage devices may be bypassed for online alternatives.

Until recently, a thumb drive served as the best way to transport large files. But now, large files can be accessed from anywhere and be used in a collaborative context. For example, Google Docs users may store files in a shared folder for group collaboration.

The capability to upload large files will be ready within the next few weeks. Users receive 1 GB in storage. Enterprise customers will also have the capability to add additional storage at a cost of $3.50 per GB per year.

Companies may use the Google Documents List API to sync files and provide additional backups.

Google is partnering with three companies to provide additional services:

• Memeo Connect for Google Apps is a new desktop application that offers an easy way to access, migrate, and synchronize files to Google Docs across multiple computers.
• Syncplicity offers businesses automated back-up and file management with Google Docs.
• Manymoon is a project management platform that makes it simple to organize and share tasks and documents with coworkers and partners, including uploading files to Google Docs.

Google Docs is emerging as the strongest player in the storage and collaboration space. Competitors like Box.net provide similar services but are far smaller than Google.

This is a trend to watch as cloud computing becomes more predominant and the concept of collaborating online becomes more palatable. This will be especially true as it becomes apparent how documents can be accessed anywhere on any device with potential significant cost savings.

Discuss

Buy This Item: [Click here to buy this item]

Read Original Article

Caveat emptor: Purchase a subsidized Nexus One from Google (GOOG) and you’ll pay dearly if you cancel service early. According to the device’s terms of sale, the search company charges an “Equipment Recovery Fee” of $350 in the event users cancel service before 120 days have passed. This, in addition to the $200 in early termination fees that carrier T-Mobile assesses.

From the Nexus One Terms of Sale:

You agree to pay Google an equipment subsidy recovery fee (the “Equipment Recovery Fee”) equal to the difference between the full price of the Nexus handheld device without service plan and the price you paid for the Nexus handheld device if you cancel your wireless plan prior to 120 days of continuous wireless service. For example, if the full price of the Nexus handheld device without service plan was $529 USD and the price you paid for the Nexus handheld device was $179 USD with a service plan, the Equipment Recovery Fee you pay will be $350 USD in the event you cancel within the first 120 days of carrier service.

… You agree that the Equipment Recovery Fee is not a penalty but is for liquidated damages Google will incur as a result of such cancellation. These damages may include, but are not limited to, loss of compensation and administrative costs associated with such cancellation or changing of wireless service provider(s), market changes, and changes in ownership. Please note that the Equipment Recovery Fee is imposed by Google and not your chosen carrier and is in addition to any early termination fees that may be charged by your chosen carrier in connection with termination of your wireless plan prior to fulfillment of your chosen carrier’s service agreement term.

The costs of canceling a T-Mobile Nexus One contract within the first four months after purchase, then, are as follows:

• $179 USD, the purchase price of the device.
• $200 USD, the early termination fee T-Mobile asesses for contracts cancelled with more than 180 days remaining on term
• $350 USD, Google’s “Equipment Recovery Fee”

Grand total: USD $729.

That’s $200 more than the cost of the device unsubsidized.

So if you’re unhappy with the Nexus One you purchased on contract, do yourself a favor and wait at least 4 months before terminating it.

What was it Google VP of Engineering Andy Rubin was saying last week? Something about making the cellphone purchasing process simple and worry-free? If that really is the goal here, implementing ETFs that make canceling a Nexus One contract more expensive than the price of the unsubsidized device itself hardly seems a good way of going about it.

I’ve asked Google to explain the rationale behind its $350 “Equipment Recovery Fee” and will update here if I’m given one.

Buy This Item: [Click here to buy this item]

Read Original Article

Filed under: Detroit Auto Show, Performance, Cadillac, Luxury

At this morning’s XTS Platinum and CTS-V Coupe debut here at the Detroit Motor Show, newly appointed brand manager Brian Nesbitt announced to the media that that all Cadillac models will receive V-Series and Platinum models. However, during the media scrum that followed the conference, we sought clarification from Cadillac spokesman David Caldwell, and he stated that future Cadillacs will receive a V-Series or a Platinum model. Thus, if you had visions of an Escalade-V dancing in your head, well… don’t.

The prevailing logic behind which models will get a V or a P will depend on the model’s market segment and inherent sportiness. As Caldwell explained it to us, a model like the CTS has a foot in both worlds (and could probably pull off both), but models like the SRX or Escalade lend themselves more to the heightened creature comforts of the Platinum experience. Some Autobloggers remain a bit foggy on why General Motors’ luxury brand needs what is effectively a double-prestige trim level (shouldn’t all Cadillacs be posh by definition?), but we do appreciate the added accouterments all the same.

And as to the possibility of a CTS-V Sport Wagon? Well, we got a wink-wink, nudge-nudge when we suggested to Cadillac that we’d like to see it, and judging by the smiles all ’round, it’s all but certain that we’ll be seeing its debut on the show circuit later this year.

Detroit 2010: Cadillac commits to V- or Platinum editions for all models, CTS-V wagon all but certain originally appeared on Autoblog on Tue, 12 Jan 2010 11:58:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Comments

Buy This Item: [Click here to buy this item]

Read Original Article

Filed under: Concept Cars, Detroit Auto Show, Hybrid, Sedan, Cadillac, GM, Luxury

Let’s just call this one the Cadillac XTS Platinum “Concept.” For reals y’all, this is one of, if not the most production ready “concepts” we’ve ever seen. For its part, Cadillac stuck to the “It’s just a concept” mantra. Though they might as well have all been nodding, elbowing and winking. If When the new XTS sees production it, will replace both the STS and the DTS.

For you tech geeks out there, this new Caddy is fairly intriguing. The all-wheel-drive powertrain is motivated by a plug-in two-mode hybrid consisting of the brand’s 3.6-liter direct-injected V6 coupled to an electric motor. Cadillac was tight-lipped on the power rating, hemming and hawing before saying “around 350 horsepower.”

That may not sound like buckets of oomph, but when compared to the Mercedes-Benz S400 Hybrid – the XTS’s probable direct competitor – makes 295 hp. The XTS theoretically makes 295 pound-feet of torque, too. For those of you not geeked on the hybrid bandwagon, Cadillac’s general manager Bryan Nesbitt posed an interesting hypothetical question, “Is the largest displacement engine the only symbol of luxury?”

As for the XTS itself, it looks like a big Cadillac., which if you stop and think about is is a good thing. Cadillacs should be big, and this sucker is large – within a couple of inches of the Mercedes-Benz S-Class, according to both Caddy and our highly unscientific eyeball-based measuring system. We also thought the XTS was significantly better looking in person than in the preview pictures that broke last night. Supposedly there are lots of design cues borrowed from Cadillac’s legendary Sixteen Concept, but aside from the grille we’re not seeing it.

The XTS has its own mojo going on, especially when it comes to the interior. Here’s where the Platinum part comes in. Nesbitt explained that Cadillac intends the XTS Platinum to be a “personal headquarters.” We’re not going to buy into the CEO and wannabe CEO pandering, but lordy is the interior fabulous. Featuring intricate laser-perforated stitching on the leather and synthetic-suede bits with sharp looking burled wood covering everything else, we have to say that with the exception of the Bentley Mulsanne, the XTS Platinum Concept has the best interior at the show. Call it the Cadillac of interiors. Video of the live reveal is available after the jump.

Photos by Drew Phillips / Copyright (C)2010 Weblogs, Inc.

Continue reading Detroit 2010: Cadillac XTS Platinum concept is anything but [w/VIDEO]

Detroit 2010: Cadillac XTS Platinum concept is anything but [w/VIDEO] originally appeared on Autoblog on Tue, 12 Jan 2010 11:27:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Comments

Buy This Item: [Click here to buy this item]

Read Original Article

Por vezes, a prática revela-se diferente da teoria. Foi o que aconteceu esta semana na CES 2010, quando um representante de uma marca de telemóveis que anunciava um “telemóvel inquebrável“ desafiou o jornalista da BBC, Dan Simmons, a pôr o telefone à prova. Vejam qual foi o desfecho deste desafio:

É merecedor de um digno #FAIL.

WebTuga – Jornalista parte telemóvel inquebrável na CES

A home theater PC with a softer side? Design Hara’s new “green” computer HTPC houses a mini-ITX board in what can only be described as a beautiful wood case. Coming in cypress wood and rose wood flavors, the computers don’t seem to available for sale just yet, but when they do become available they should offer up a nice smattering of specs like Core 2 Duo or Quad processors, 4GB of RAM, 1TB hard drives and Blu-ray drives. We don’t know the price either, but we’ll assume “much” and leave it at that.

Design Hara reminds us that our living room computer needn’t be an eyesore, nor an ode to testosterone originally appeared on Engadget on Tue, 12 Jan 2010 11:47:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink Moco Loco, Yanko Design  |  Design Hara  | Email this | Comments

Buy This Item: [Click here to buy this item]

Article

Doodle much? Not us — we just keep things in our heads which is probably for the best, but Ten One Design — maker of Pogo Stylus and Pogo Sketch — has just come up with a new solution for MacBook artists. The Inklet app essentially converts your multitouch trackpad into a drawing tablet by adding pressure sensitivity when using with a Pogo Sketch, as well as “advanced palm rejection” which lets you rest your hand while drawing or writing. As you can see in one of the videos after the break, you can also quickly adjust your canvas area at your convenience. $24.95 and it’s yours, Picasso.

Continue reading Inklet trackpad tablet app for MacBook is Wacom’s worst nightmare

Inklet trackpad tablet app for MacBook is Wacom’s worst nightmare originally appeared on Engadget on Tue, 12 Jan 2010 11:25:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink MacWorld  |  Ten One Design  | Email this | Comments

Buy This Item: [Click here to buy this item]

Article

Detroit is barely underway and already manufacturers are hinting at Geneva. Well, at least Audi is. The German carmaker announced yesterday that it will be unveiling a full hybrid vehicle based on its A8. A hybrid based on the Audi Q5 is also slated for production this summer.

The company plans to launch eight models this year, and aims to break the 1 million units sold mark this year, topping their 2009 tally of 950,000. Even though the sales dipped last year, market share increased as Audi’s dip in sales was not as bad as those of competitors.

Audi announced the us on the electric A8 as they revealed the newest version of the E-tron in Detroit.

2010 Detroit: 2011 Audi A8:

All Photos Copyright © 2009 Stephen Calogera – egmCarTech.

By: Stephen Calogera

Source: AutoWeek

A friend of mine from back home in dear, freezing Fargo came to visit me this past weekend. I was ecstatic; I love Stanford, but going to school so far away from home in what my grandpa lovingly refers to as the “Fruit-and-Nut State” (the last time NorDak went blue was in 1964) definitely has its drawbacks, namely that my Stanford world and my past usually never intertwine.

But that all changed this weekend, when Grant got a little too drunk after a particularly epic champagne power hour.

“Molly, you got into this elitist institution because you’re a legacy. There are people smarter than you in North Dakota who should’ve gotten in, and you know it.”

The next morning, although Grant had no recollection of it and we merrily skipped off to have pancakes, the echoes of his drunken, belligerent rant remained: a friend from the past questioned my legitimacy in the present.

Here it goes. I’ll finally, painfully admit it: I. Am. Legacy. Not only am I legacy; I had to use an addendum to fit in all my legacy connections on my Stanford application. I have pictures of myself wearing Stanford pajamas hours after I left the womb, and ever since I can remember, I’ve dreamed of only Stanford.

This is not something I confess lightly. I’ve done everything in my power to hide my legacy background for fear that anyone who finds me out may arrive at the assumption my belligerent friend Grant made. While talking to a friend (also legacy) last week, she remarked, “I can’t explain it, but something changes when you tell someone you’re a legacy. It’s like a falter; you can see it in their eyes that their perception of you and your legitimacy has forever been changed.”

As I see it, there are two main responses a legacy student may have upon initial admittance to Stanford. There are those, like myself, who do everything in their power to keep their legacy a secret and perform in almost frantic desperation to prove to themselves and their peers that their admittance was not a product of a family name. You’ll find these students among the most terrified during NSO, pretending alongside their new friends that they, too, had no idea that John Elway went to Stanford (even though they’ve heard about Elway’s epic 1982 game-winning play five times a football season since before they could even say the word “Cardinal”).

And then you have the others, who have known since middle school that their acceptance letter has been their birthright and have used that advantage to its fullest. These are the ones at NSO who look you straight in the eye with their Christian Dior eyeglasses as they proudly display a framed picture of their dad receiving an award from Dick Lyman.

But then NSO ends, you start to get into the swing of things and, before you know it, you’re far too busy trying to create the most whacked-out thesis in IHUM to worry about anything that mattered in life before you met your tall, dark, handsome RA. However, that occasional B- on a paper or a poor presentation can always bring back the legacy insecurities faster than Bravman can throw out iPods at Mid-Year Convocation.

But all stereotypes aside, what can we make of the legacy institution as a whole? All it would take is one look at Dubya’s track record to make James Madison rise out of his grave with a new Virginia Plan abolishing any and all types of name-affiliated favoritism. But it must be said that there have been extremely talented families who have devoted their lives and their passion to doing good for this country, the extent of which may not have been possible without the existence of the family name (you gotta love those Kennedys).

In any case, the legacy of the legacy really comes down to what you make of it. Although it may have given me an advantage on my application, I can definitely assure you that my legacy status did not, unfortunately, give my GPA any advantage while I was trying to fulfill my natural science requirement (yeah, that was fun). But all in all, I’d say I hold my own pretty well with the rest of the non-legacies. Maybe I should just move on and accept my legacy acceptance as an unfair advantage I got in my youth–one that karma will be sure to make up for in the next 20 years of my life (dear sweet baby Jesus, I hope not).

Stanford’s relationship with its own legacy is extremely complex–a relationship that I cannot even attempt to fully explain. And although I by no means wish to come off as a poor, middle-class white girl suffering from some poor, middle-class, white girl guilt syndrome, I do hope to illustrate that at least for this girl, a student’s relationship with the existence of her own legacy is a little more complex than you might think.

Regulatory agencies are routinely violating federal law by not submitting final regulations to Congress, according to a recent Congressional Research Service (CRS) report. Any rule agencies have not submitted to Congress could be susceptible to a lawsuit.

<!–break–>

According to CRS, in FY 2008, 28 federal agencies and cabinet departments failed to send copies of 101 final rules to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the investigative arm of Congress. As of Oct. 26, 2009, 96 of the 101 rules still had not been submitted, raising questions about their legality.

The rules in question cover a broad range of regulatory policy issues. Among the 96 rules still not submitted:

• A February 2008 regulation changing the rules for leasing and management in the Alaska National Petroleum Reserve.
• A June 2008 rule changing procedures for employee drug and alcohol testing in the transportation sector.
• Multiple habitat preservation rules for species covered under the Endangered Species Act.

Typically, when agencies publish final rules in the Federal Register, they also identify a future date when the rule will take effect, often 30 or 60 days after the publication date. When the rule takes effect, it is considered to have the full force of law. However, the Congressional Review Act (CRA), passed in 1996, added another step that requires that final rules "shall be submitted to Congress before a rule can take effect." The act also requires submission to the Comptroller General, the head of GAO. The law’s intent is to give Congress an opportunity to review regulations. If Congress objects to the regulation, the act spells out procedures for congressional disapproval of the rule.

According to the CRS report, agencies’ failure to submit rules to Congress was not limited to FY 2008. On five separate occasions from 1999 to 2009, the GAO compared its log of submitted rules to those published in the Federal Register and found significant discrepancies. For example, in 2005, GAO identified 460 regulations that had been published but that GAO had not received. Overall, "GAO said that it (and presumably Congress) did not receive more than 1,000 final rules during 7 of the past 10 years," the report says.

CRS more recently reviewed GAO’s data for the early part of FY 2009 and identified 22 rules that had not been submitted. GAO’s log of rules it has received is available online at www.gao.gov/fedrules.

The repeated failure of agencies to submit rules raises questions as to why a seemingly simple problem has not been rectified. Agencies should be aware of the problem: GAO has regularly transmitted its findings to past administrations, according to the CRS report, and has mentioned the problem in congressional testimony.

After each of its five reviews, GAO wrote to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), a branch of the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in charge of executive branch regulatory policy. The letters discussed the implications of CRA compliance and included lists of rules not submitted to GAO.

Although OIRA oversees agency rulemaking activity, it has failed to respond to GAO’s concerns. "GAO and OIRA officials said they were not aware of any effort by OIRA to contact federal agencies regarding the missing rules during the time periods covered by" four letters sent between 1999 and 2008, the CRS report says.

The most recent GAO-to-OIRA letter was sent May 26, 2009, and included the list of 101 rules not submitted to GAO during FY 2008. When contacted by CRS, OIRA denied having received the letter. "Subsequently, however, on November 12, 2009, the Deputy Administrator of OIRA sent an e-mail to federal agencies saying that it ‘had come to my attention that your agency may not have submitted final rules to Congress and to [GAO] as required by the Congressional Review Act,’" the report says. "He urged the agencies to ‘contact the GAO to determine which rules they have not yet received from your agency’," but did not include the list of rules prepared by GAO.

OMB spokesperson Tom Gavin told BNA news service (subscription required), "We take very seriously our statutory responsibilities and encourage agencies to follow the law, including the Congressional Review Act. Agency compliance is not something we have direct control over. When we do hear of problems, we try to encourage agencies to follow the law."

The fate of rules that have been published in the Federal Register but not submitted to Congress is uncertain. Under the CRA, agencies’ responsibility and ability to submit a rule does not expire. Submitting the rule now, even if it had been published years earlier, should, from a purely legal standpoint, cause it to go into effect immediately.

However, if agencies fail to submit rules, they will be susceptible to judicial review. Because of the plain language of the act, any regulated entity could make a case that it need not comply with a rule that has not been submitted to Congress. Regulated entities could also use an agency’s failure to submit a rule as an argument for defying enforcement action, such as a fine or lawsuit, under that rule.

Despite the requirement that rules "shall be submitted to Congress before a rule can take effect," a separate section of the CRA injects confusion into judicial review of the effectiveness of a rule. Section 805 of the act states, "No determination, finding, action, or omission under this chapter shall be subject to judicial review."

Case law for the act is both limited and inconsistent. At least two U.S. district courts, citing Section 805, have ruled that courts may not decide whether a rule can be enforced based on its submission status under the act. However, a different court rejected those courts’ interpretation and found that the judicial review exception does not apply to an agency’s failure to submit a rule to Congress. That court placed a greater weight on congressional intent, citing a statement by then-Sen. Don Nickles (R-OK) printed in the Congressional Record after passage of the bill; the statement says, "The limitation on judicial review in no way prohibits a court from determining whether a rule is in effect." (For further discussion, see the May 2008 CRS report, Congressional Review of Agency Rulemaking: An Update and Assessment of The Congressional Review Act after a Decade, available at, www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL30116.pdf).

According to the CRS report, "The issue of whether a court may prevent an agency from enforcing a covered rule that was not reported to Congress has not been resolved conclusively."

The CRS report, Congressional Review Act: Rules Not Submitted to GAO and Congress, was written by specialist Curtis W. Copeland and published on Dec. 29, 2009. A copy of the report obtained by OMB Watch (with an incomplete appendix) is available at www.ombwatch.org/files/regs/PDFs/CRS122909.pdf.